Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the device". It is unclear whether applicant is referring to “a first device” or “a second device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-17, 20, and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Storm (US 20100105464).
In claim 11, Storm discloses
Receiving data from a sporting event upon which wagers can be placed on actions occurring during the live sporting event (paragraph 101, “general game information (e.g. team names, player rosters, start time, etc.) from a data feed or other source”)
Providing one or more areas for selecting a portion of the video feed of the live sporting event based on one or more of sensor data, character recognition data, facial recognition, artificial intelligence, and/or machine learning (paragraph 104, the interface is provided on video feed of the live sporting event, based on sensor data. It is noted by examiner that as this is a Markush group, only 1 of these limitations needs to be taught. It is further noted by examiner that any input teaches the BRI of “sensor data”, as an input device senses the input. This limitation may alternatively be rejected off the sensor data of the input of the human gaming agent as per paragraph 103)
Displaying, on the device, elements of the sporting event in the selected portion of the video feed of the live sporting event, wherein available data from the sporting event are dependent upon elements of the live sporting event displayed on the device in the selected portion of the video feed of the live sporting event (paragraph 104, wagering data is displayed on the portion of the video feed, and it is dependent upon the player being touched, for example “a user may touch the image of Barry Bonds (or other image or icon) to trigger the betting interface overlay that enables the user to select and place a specific bet concerning Barry’s at bat”)
In claim 16, Storm discloses
A first device having a first display (paragraph 132 discloses multiple user devices as well as a display)
A second device having a second display (paragraph 132)
A broadcast of a live sporting event (paragraph 104)
A wagering network (paragraph 70, as the network is allowing for wagering, it is a wagering network)
Wherein the wagering network provides one or more wagers on one or more outcomes of actions inside of the live sporting event (paragraph 102)
The device controls an integrated display of data associated with the one or more wagers and the broadcast of the live sporting event on the display device (paragraphs 103, 104)
The data associated with the one or more wagers is displayed on the second device and (paragraph 104)
The data associated with the one or more wagers is related to one or more elements of the live sporting event and is overlaid on one or more corresponding elements in the live sporting event, or the data associated with the one or more wagers is displayed at a location on a game play area that is correlated to or determined by artificial intelligence and or machine learning, one or more locations relevant to the one or more wagers (It is noted by examiner that this is a Markush group, and thus only 1 of the limitations must be taught to teach the invention as claimed. In this case, paragraph 104 discloses “data associated with the one or more wagers is related to one or more elements of the live sporting event” as the data is related to Barry Bonds who is being displayed, “and is overlaid on one or more corresponding elements in the live sporting event”, as paragraph 104 discloses an “interface overlay”)
In claim 12, Storm discloses triggering a selection module based on identified elements of the selected portion of the video feed of the sporting event (paragraph 104, selection of Barry Bonds)
In claim 13, Storm discloses the sensor data comprises physiological data (as the sensors are inputs, it would be data relating to movement of the user for touching the button)
In claim 14, Storm discloses displaying one or more menus based on the selected portion of the video feed on the sporting event (paragraph 104, the BRI of “menu” is taught by the overlay of Storm)
In claim 15, Storm discloses displaying historical data related to the identified elements based on the selected portion of the video feed on the sporting event (paragraph 97, the data is determined prior to the start of the game, thus making it historical data under the BRI)
In claim 17, Storm discloses the first and second device being communicatively paired (figure 1 shows 10b and 10d-n being communicatively coupled to one another, further paragraph 51. Alternatively, paragraph 42 discloses a single device may instead provide the functionality over multiple devices)
In claim 19, Storm discloses the data associated with the one or more wagers is displayed in a ribbon on the second device (applicant provides no limiting factors for what a “ribbon” entails, as such the language has very minimal patentable weight, as such, paragraph 104 teaches this limitation as the BRI of ribbon is taught by the overlay of Storm)
In claim 20 Storm discloses a display module is triggered as a result of an input on the first device (paragraph 104)
In claim 22, Storm discloses wagering module configured to provide wagering activity on the live sporting event in real time (paragraph 104)
In claim 23, Storm discloses the wagering module is coupled to the wagering network and facilitates placing wagers on the mobile device (paragraph 70, 102)
In claim 24, Storm discloses the first device is communicatively paired to a set top box (it is noted by examiner that applicant has provided no limitations of what is required of a set top box, as such the BRI can include whatever device provides television. As a live feed is provided in paragraphs 103-104, this teaches on the limitation as claimed)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 18, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storm in view of Huke (US 20220092912).
In claim 18, Storm discloses the claimed invention except for a display module to display the data associated with the one or more wagers upon a successful pairing of the first device to the second device, however Huke discloses a display module to display the data associated with the one or more wagers upon a successful pairing of the first device to the second device (paragraphs 7-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Storm with Huke in order to allow for the devices to work in conjunction with one another to provide a higher quality display experience.
In claim 21, Huke discloses inputs on the first device control one or more of the display of the data associated with the one or more wagers on the second device and locations of display of the data associated with the one or more wagers (paragraphs 6-7)
Claim(s) 25-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storm in view of Schwartz (US 20200234543)
In claim 25, Storm discloses
Retrieving at least one active live event upon which probabilistic outcomes can be determined on actions occurring during that live event (paragraph 101, “general game information (e.g. team names, player rosters, start time, etc.) from a data feed or other source”, as well as “stream of real time game information”, and paragraph 103-104 which discloses the live event of Barry Bonds coming up to bat)
Presenting at least one probabilistic outcome on an action occurring during of the live event, Selecting at least one player or object in an area of play inside the live event for providing at least one probabilistic outcome and providing at least one a probabilistic outcome on the selection (paragraph 104, users are given the opportunity to place a bet on Barry Bonds’s at bat, and may select the outcome, which is the selected player of Barry Bonds)
Storm fails to disclose the probabilistic outcome determined by artificial intelligence and/or machine learning, however Schwartz discloses use of machine learning for determining a probabilistic outcome (paragraph 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Storm with Schwartz in order to allow for improved real time modification of odds.
In claim 26, Storm discloses triggering the presenting of at least one probabilistic outcome on an occurring during of the live event through detection of movement of at least one player inside the live event (paragraphs 103-104, Barry Bonds is beginning an at bat, which is movement of the player)
In claim 27, Storm discloses the at least one player or object who is the basis for the probabilistic outcome is at least one or more players or objects selected from a predetermined group of players or outcomes (it would be the players of the game of the live feed)
In claim 28, Storm discloses the predetermined group of players or objects is based on the type of live events (Storm discloses a player taking an at bat during the game, which would mean that it is based on the type of live event being shown)
In claim 29, Storm discloses the determination of whether a probabilistic outcome was successful is based on a difference between the actual path taken and the path wager, wherein the path wager is successful if the difference between the actual path taken and the path wager is less than a threshold (it is noted by examiner that no particulars of a “path wager” is described. Paragraph 104 discloses betting that Bonds will hit a single, which would be a particular path that the ball takes wherein the ball is hit into play, not caught by the opposing team’s defenders, and then the ball does not reach the glove of a defender touching first base before Barry Bonds reaches first base. The wager is paid off if this path is taken, and otherwise is not paid off)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS HAYNES HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS H HENRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715